The scientific study of kissing is “philematology.”
This is something I ran into at Cracked.com (one of the funniest websites EVER)!
It’s all about sex and booze and fruit flies.
For many of us, failed relationships and alcohol go together like New Year’s Eve and also alcohol. That’s one of the pressures of being human; we have our big brains and big emotions, and we need big containers of liquor to forget the bad feelings they churn up. But surprisingly, humans aren’t the only creatures that do this.
Since fruit flies are very sexual beings in the first place, researchers wanted to find out what would happen when they were sexually rejected. This happens often with them, because female fruit flies are prudish things, as they don’t like having sex a second time after they’ve recently mated. If a second male tries to mount her, she’ll kick and run away, as you can see in the video below. Because hey, Mama fruit fly didn’t raise no ho.
After the flies had their time with the female, the researchers gave both males who had been rejected and those who’d gotten lucky the option of eating normal food or food spiked with alcohol. While the happy fruit flies had no preference for either option, the rejected fruit flies were significantly more likely to eat the alcohol-infused food.
And yes, at a basic level, it’s for the same reason you do it. Alcohol triggers reward chemicals in fruit fly brains, and when they don’t get that satisfaction from sex, they’ll get it from a bottle. Or a huge meal of alcohol-soaked food, in this case. And, with that, we’re going to estimate that it will be 48 hours before some depressed college kid tries to eat a pizza he has soaked in gin.
Thanks again to that gang of zany madcaps over at Cracked.com!
The folks over at MedicalDaily.com may be on to something!
In a recent article, it states that anger, not forgiveness, may be the key to maintaining a healthy relationship.
The time-honored tradition of forgive and forget may not be the best way to a happy marriage, psychologists revealed.
Instead, they claim that expressing your anger and having a heated but honest conversation could be more effective clearing the air and guaranteeing a long and healthy relationship.
Relationship psychologists at Florida State University said that forgiveness does not always work and could actually cause some major problems in an intimate relationship.
“I continued to find evidence that thoughts and behaviors presumed to be associated with better well-being lead to worse well-being among some people — usually the people who need the most help achieving well-being,” researcher James McNulty said in a statement.
McNulty looked at the potential costs of positive psychology by looking at previous studies and found that that forgiveness in a marriage can have some untended negative effects.
“We all experience a time in a relationship in which a partner transgresses against us in some way,” he said. “For example, a partner may be financially irresponsible, unfaithful, or unsupportive.”
He said that when these problems in the relationship occur, partners must decide whether they should be angry and to hold onto their anger or to forgive.
He discovered that a variety of factors can complicate the effectiveness of forgiveness, including a partner’s level of agreeableness and the severity and frequency of the wrongdoing.
He said that while an agreeable person who believes that their partner is forgiving is less likely to offend their partner, a disagreeable person may actually be more likely to offend their partner.
Furthermore, he said that anger can serve a vital role in signaling to a transgressing partner that their offensive behavior is not acceptable.
“If the partner can do something to resolve a problem that is likely to otherwise continue and negatively affect the relationship, people may experience long-term benefits by temporarily withholding forgiveness and expressing anger,” he said.
However, psychologists note that there is never a single answer to a problem.
“There is no ‘magic bullet,’ no single way to think or behave in a relationship. The consequences of each decision we make in our relationships depends on the circumstances that surround that decision,” he concluded.
“The key to success is sincerity. One you can fake that, you got it made!”
French dramatist Jean Giraudoux was really onto something, at least when it comes to matters of the heart.
A recent MedicalDaily.com article reports, “Pretending that you find someone attractive increases your susceptibility to their charms and heightens your chances of truly falling in love with them, according to new relationship research.”
The latest findings  suggest that behavior can lead to certain emotions just as much as emotions can lead to behavior, and may offer explanations for the relative success of arranged marriages compared to conventional marriages.
Past research has shown that those in arranged marriages or those who have had their partner chosen for them by a parent or matchmaker, tend to feel more in love over time compared to those in regular marriages who feel less in love as time passes.
Lead researcher psychologist Richard Wiseman tested the theory of the “positive action” technique, which he believes could be used to not only accelerate feelings in new relationships but also rekindle them in older ones, by holding a speed dating night where some of the prospective partners were instructed to act as if they were already in love with each other.
“Just as people feel happier when they force their face into a smile, so pairs of people behaving as if they find one another attractive became emotionally close,” he said. “The assumption was that the emotion leads to the action or behavior but this shows it can happen the other way around, action can lead to emotions.”
“Behaving like you are in love can lead to actually falling in love. People are always going about positive thinking when this suggest positive action is just as valid,” Wiseman said. “We actually had a problem stopping people. We had go around pulling couples apart.”
“Actions are the quickest, easiest and most powerful way to instantly change how you think and feel,” he said.
 The findings are published in the professor’s new book Rip It Up, which is described as ‘ripping up the rule book, where Wiseman will present radical new insights into ways to improve your body and brain.
An orgasm, the ultimate pleasure? For those suffering coital cephalalgia, or “sexual headaches”, it’s quite the opposite.
A recent article indicates that this rare type of headache occurs in about 1% of men and is characterized by a sudden, severe “explosive” pain at the base of the skull that builds just before or during orgasm. Afterward the intense pain may last for several hours or even a few days.
(They are the 1%!)
Doctors aren’t certain of what causes this disorder. Erectile dysfunction medications such as Viagra could be a malefactor, as it’s estimated that 10% of men using this kind of medication may experience coital cephalalgia. Although these headaches are often benign, it’s always important to seek medical attention if you are experiencing them as in rare cases it could indicate a tumor or worse.
Over-exposure seems to be the best treatment. According to Wikipedia, “a doctor may recommend heavy sexual activity and masturbation for a short period of time ranging from a few days to a few weeks.”
To sooth the pain, it’s recommendable to take medications that prevent such headaches (Propranolol) during this intense sexual period.
(In other words… Take An Aspirin, Buddy!!)
Anand KS, & Dhikav V (2009). Primary headache associated with sexual activity. Singapore medical journal, 50 (5) PMID: 19495503
I’m sorry but this little girl is simply Evil Incarnate!
That adorably cute little face says it all (i.e. ‘I am the Spawn of Satan! Can I have a cookie?’)
And yet… there is humour here, as well.
A dark, evil, perverse humour, perhaps… but humour all the same.
A milder, funnier version was put together in this commercial for the 2010 Young Director Award.
My kinda kid!
What Is Love? 
(And no, it’s not that ‘A Night at the Roxbury’ song by Haddaway)
We live under a massive cultural delusion about the nature of real love.
Propagated by mainstream media, from the time you’re born you’re inundated with the belief that love is a feeling and that when you find “the one” you’ll sense it in your gut and be overcome by an undeniable sense of knowing. When the feeling and corresponding knowing fade (for the knowing is intimately linked to the feeling) and the work of learning about real love begins, most people take the diminished feeling as a sign that they’re in the wrong relationship and walk away. And then they start over again, only to find that the now-familiar knowing and feeling fade again… and again… and again.
If love isn’t a feeling, what is it?
Love is action. Love is tolerance. Love is learning your partner’s love language and then expressing love in a way that he can receive. Love is giving. Love is receiving. Love is plodding through the slow eddies of a relationship without jumping ship into another’s churning rapids. Love is recognizing that it’s not your partner’s job to make you feel alive, fulfilled, or complete; that’s your job. And it’s only when you learn to become the source of your own aliveness and are living your life connected to the spark of genius that is everyone’s birthright can you fully love another.
It’s a crushing moment when the infatuation drug wears off and they’re left to begin the real work of loving. And it’s even more devastating when this happens during their engagement, a time our culture hammers into their head as the happiest in their life. It’s time to send a different message to young people about the difference between infatuation and love. If we’re going to restore marriage to a place of honor and respect, we must teach that the role of one’s partner is not to save you from yourself and make you feel alive, fulfilled, and complete; only you can do that. It’s time to teach a different message. Let’s begin the conversation here.
 This piece is a re-blogging of most of a blog article by Sheryl Paul in the online edition of the Huffington Post (yeah, I real all kinds of things).
 Sheryl Paul, M.A., has counseled thousands of people worldwide through her private practice, her bestselling books, her Home Study Programs and her websites. She has appeared several times on “The Oprah Winfrey Show”, as well as on “Good Morning America” and other top media shows and publications around the globe. To sign up for her free 78-page eBook, “Conscious Transitions: The 7 Most Common (and Traumatic) Life Changes”, visit her website at http://conscious-transitions.com.
Americans are lonelier than ever before, according to a growing body of research. All those “friends” we have on the giant social network may be part of the problem
Is Facebook really making people more lonely? Or are lonely people attracted to Facebook?
These are some of the questions posed by a recent article in TheWeek.com.
This is the paradox of the Facebook age: We have an unmatched ability to connect with other people through social networks, yet we still “suffer from unprecedented alienation,” says Stephan Marche in The Atlantic. Evidence from the growing body of loneliness research seems to suggest that the two trends are almost certainly connected. While American tradition holds that there’s nothing wrong with a little individualistic solitude, the isolation of superficial connections with hundreds of Facebook “friends” might just be too much for us to handle.
(California high school student, Ellie Ritter, talks to her friends through Facebook: A growing body of research suggests that a connection is not the same thing as a bond/confidant. Photo: Lacy Atkins/San Francisco Chronicle/Corbis)
But is it fair to blame Facebook for all this?
Here are some reactions to Stephan Marche’s views…
A great discussion indeed!
I do not own a pet nor will I ever again.
There was a time when I did own pets.
There was even a time, way back, when I owned four… count ‘em, FOUR… cats.
I’ve had goldfish and turtles. I even had a snake once.
To this day, in all my life, my best friend in the whole world was a black Labrador retriever named Trista.
The day Trista breathed her last was the day I vowed I would never own another animal, domestic or otherwise.
When she passed away at the age of 13, I came as close as I probably will ever come to having a nervous breakdown.
Relatives of mine have died and I did not weep and sob as much as I did on that day.
I cannot and will not bring myself to do that again. I seriously don’t think I’d be able to handle it.
In the aftermath of Trista’s death, one by one over the course of a few months, I murdered all the plants in my house. All save one, which I tried to kill through active ignorage. The little thing… an aloe… seemed to thrive on neglect.
Eventually, months and months later, I tossed a small glass of water into it, partly out of pity and partly out of curiosity as to what would happen. Within 24 hours the aloe had perked up and started showing signs of life, as if nothing had happened. That spiky-edged little twerp earned her place in my home.
Eventually, I started to do the same.
Riposa in Pace, Trista.
This evening, Friday April 6, at sundown is the beginning of Passover. It is by far my favourite holiday.
I will be leaving for Toronto Friday morning.
This blog will shut down until after Passover.
I hope to return Monday April 16.
Until then, may you all have a meaningful and spirit-filled holiday season.
There are certain types of persons who, given any amount of influence, command or authority, become drunk with power.
They get tipsy on tyranny. Pissed on prestige. Soused with strength. Potted on privilege. Muddled with mastery. Smashed on supremacy.
And I am not necessarily talking about those who actually wield supreme executive power. You don’t have to be a tyrant or despot to get loaded on leadership (ok, that was the last one, I promise).
In fact, if anything, there seems to be an inverse relationship betweem the rank of the person and the degree of power or amount of the authority granted… and the corresponding reaction thereto.
In other words, the smaller the person and the more mediocre the rise in power… the more likely it is that said person will behave like some banana republic dictator thereafter.
(‘One Bullet’ Barney)
Picture Barney Fife being made ‘acting Sheriff’ for a week while Andy is away. You get the picture.
While this phenomenon can happen almost anywhere, it often happens in an office setting. A person is given a promotion with the responsibility to supervise and manage his former colleagues. Most people, I am happy to say, perform their new jobs well and are very admirable in the fact that they do not turn into Josef Stalin.
However… every once in a while, someone gets promoted and we discover to our mutual horror that burning within that small, dark heart is a desire to exploit his new-found power and lord it over his former peers.
He sneers at and denigrates those who are now ‘under him.’ He suddenly is too busy to have lunch with his now former friends. He begins to mistreat them, using his position to exact punishment for perceived wrongs done to him in the past, or worse, just for the sick thrill of it.
Just to be clear, I am not talking about someone who has risen to the level of his incompetence, as per The Peter Principle.  Someone who is merely incompetent is not, by definition, a cruel overlord. Far from it. Such a person is often a pitiful creature that evokes pathos not hatred.
The person who becomes a bad boss upon being granted power already had dormant within him or her the seeds of evil. It took the granting of authority to water that seed and make it bloom into the vile, carnivorous plant now occupying the manager’s office down the hall.
Underlings feel powerless. They submit to the ill-treatment because they feel there is nothing to do other than leave. And for many, that is simply not an option. They need the job… so will put up with being mistreated because they feel that have to. Some may try to undermine the newly-minted superior and thwart his every plan. Those with connections with upper management may try to crush him from above. Some may try to ‘manage upward’ to limit the danger posed to them (see footnote below). But for the majority of underlings, they look upon their former friend, former colleague, former co-worker and peer with an impotent loathing.
But what of the new bureaucratic oligarch himself? Unlike ‘normal, decent’ management types, he uses his power (or what little influence and authority he now has) as a weapon of oppression, not as a tool to further the interests and ultimately help bring about the success of the enterprise. Part of it could be mere self-aggrandizement, demeaning and snubbing others to make himself feel (or look to others) important as befitting (in his eyes) his new station. But part of it could be something more sinister… a kind of workplace sadism, on a certain level. To that person, inflicting pain is not merely a means to an end… i.e. making others respect his authority; it is an end in and of itself.
Such a person is deserving of the deepest loathing.
We can only hope that their tenure is short-lived. As with the Barney Fife analogy, we all know that Sheriff Andy will be back next week so we try the best to stick it out until Monday.
Until then, those drunk with power earn our contempt… and hatred.
 The Peter Principle: “In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” In other words, employees tend to be promoted until they reach a position in which they cannot work competently. The principle holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Eventually they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their “level of incompetence”), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions. Peter’s Corollary states that “in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties” and adds that “work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.” “Managing upward” is the concept of a subordinate finding ways to subtly “manage” superiors in order to limit the damage that they end up doing. It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise, which also introduced the “salutary science of hierarchiology.”